Q.What are the latest numbers on how many IPO filers have identified themselves as EGCs?

—– A. As of today, Friday, June 22, we’re showing 175.

Q.The whole rationale behind the JOBS Act’s “IPO On-Ramp” provision is to encourage companies to go public that might not have done so otherwise. The provision became effective on April 5 of this year. How many EGC IPOs were already underway on that date (with the company’s declaration of EGC status coming only later)?

—– A. Of the 175 IPOs we’ve identified, 137 were already underway as of April 5, 2012.

Q.How many EGC IPOs self-identify as EGCs in their first IPO filing?

—– A. Only 16. In other words, just 9% of companies that claim EGC status in their IPO filings did so from the get-go.

Q.Do any companies going public claim EGC status in their IPO filings prior to April 5?

—– A. No.

Q.Among all companies that began the IPO process on April 5 or after, how many now call themselves EGCs?

—– A. There have been 120 new initial public offerings since that date (includes IPOs by foreign private issuers filing Form F-1 and registered investment companies filing form N-2). 38 of those have identified themselves as EGCs.

Q.The JOBS Act specifies that an EGC cannot have “completed” an IPO before December 8, 2011. However, an EGC may have begun the IPO process at any time. How many commenced the IPO registration process before that date?

—– A. Of the 175 EGC IPOs, 64 got started before December 8, 2011. The oldest was an S-11 filed by Western Asset Mortgage Capital Corp on June 12, 2009.

Q.What is the average amount of time that passes between a company’s first IPO filing and its ECG declaration?

—– A. The average is 179 days. For 23 companies, more than a year had passed.

Q.Of the IPOs that have gone effective since December 8, how many are by self-identifying EGCs? How about since April 5?

—– A. We see 45 EGC IPOs that have gone effective overall. That’s out of 377 (12%) total IPOs declared effective after December 8, and 147 (31%) from April 5 onward.

Q.The JOBS Act does not seem to preclude EGCs from claiming that status after their IPOs have gone effective. Have any companies done that?